History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedBEST TANK IN THE WORLD

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 14>
Author
Kids View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 19-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 236
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kids Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 13:51
If you are talking about a single component of a system, I personally dont see any difference between these advanced tanks. But, a tank is simply one of the building block of a land system. In other words, the effectivenss of a tank lies not solely on its ability to destroy targets, but on how well it co-op with its logistical and supporting roles.

Moreover, designing a weapon and how well the weapon is on the battlefront are two different things. The designers can only see mostly from past battle experience in order to formulate an more accurate plan for building such weapon. Technology capability may be limited to enemies, but not so in terms of tactics and strategy. Simple tactics like planting large amount of mines or targeting the most vulnerable parts of a tank by RPG proven themselves effectively against US army during the invasion of Iraqi in 2003.

Thus, by considering these two factors (logistics, digitalized network, infantry support and battle experience), I would say that M1A2 of US Army enjoy the most favorable spot in 21st century warfare. Germany may retain its upperhand in few minor areas, but it lacks of a complete system of management to exploit its armoured car's potential fully, of a powerful airborne support (attacking helicoptors, for example), and of combat experiences to update its system to counter new enemy's threats.
Back to Top
aghart View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 05-Sep-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aghart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 17:57

Originally posted by Kids Kids wrote:

As far as I know, British-made Challlenger II has the best defense and armour protection in the world: "The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10)". http://fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm

Its unique rifle main gun allows it to fire at a much longer and precise distance than any other tanks in the world (a Challenger II penetrated an Iraqi T-72 at a distance of over 4000m, and its still the record). And, these two characteristics make up for its lack of speed and maybe the lack of versatile weaponary due to its rifle gun.


It's the rifled barrel that gives Challanger II versatile weaponary not reduce it. The Smoothbore guns of the US and Germany are excellent armour destroying weapons (except at extreme ranges) but they are totally useless for anything else!!  The main function of a tank is the destruction of enemy armour, but it is not it's only function, unless it is armed with a smoothbore gun, then it becomes a very expensive A/T gun.

 

Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines
Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1098
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote strategos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 18:13

The drivers become more important than the machine for many of these tanks, since they how very similar capibilities.



Edited by strategos
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html
Back to Top
Sudaka View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14-Nov-2004
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sudaka Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 01:35

Im not sure which is the best. But i like to remark that the most important thing in a battlefield is the terrain. This superb weapons look perfect to fight in a hard plain battlefield, but can make 50meters in a field like Malvinas/Falkand. The permafrost its a trikky terrain, in THAT battlefield the most important think is the weight / cm2 relation. Gunpower, Armor, Crossterrain Speed come later.

Another example. My country (Argentina) lack of bridges capable to hold over 20 tons, so the argetinian tank can be heavy tank so in 1980 they design the TAM. TAM is a Thin between a light tank and a main battle tank. Is very bad  but any another thing can be deployed. But any armored army that invade argentina will have to  chosse betwenn only a few roads able to sostein moder tanks

Not yet mein friend, not yet
Back to Top
J.M.Finegold View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Formerly known as "Dux"

Joined: 11-Dec-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote J.M.Finegold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 15:01
Originally posted by aghart aghart wrote:

It's the rifled barrel that gives Challanger II versatile weaponary not reduce it. The Smoothbore guns of the US and Germany are excellent armour destroying weapons (except at extreme ranges) but they are totally useless for anything else!!  The main function of a tank is the destruction of enemy armour, but it is not it's only function, unless it is armed with a smoothbore gun, then it becomes a very expensive A/T gun.


Well the British are thinking about changing their barrels to smoothbore.  Rifled barrels have horrible accuracy when it comes to launching APFSDS rounds, which are the primary weapons of most tanks these days.  Other than that, a smoothbore isn't that bad when lobbing HE shells, and has a longer life span without replacing the rifling of the barrel.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 15:54

The challenger II rifled gun was not an innovation it was on the Chietain too.

It's main advantage, the ability to fire HESH is increasingly becoming a obsolete.

Firing HESH it is easily the best tank around at shooting old Soviet tanks with steel armour, but HESH doesn't work against the laminated armour of modern tanks and as Dux say it's not so good at shooting DU ammo.

 

Challeger has the best armoured around, but the Merkava has it's engine in front, so more resistant to a direct hit on the front that penetrates than a challenger, so even safer for the crew.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 168
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hannibal Barca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 17:39

I am actually leaning towards the Challenger II but I can't say that yet because the Abrams has shown itself as the most battle worthy tank. Give the Challenger some experience in the field so that we can see its true ability and it might be the best.

Abrams.

"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
Genghis_Kan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Genghis_Kan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 18:39

Well this is a very difficult question. I mean different tanks is basically designed to have different advantages. Some tanks have heavier armor. Some tanks have better firepower. Some tanks have better mobility. A tank which have a balance of all of those does not mean it's the best because overall will be weaker than other tanks. Also some tanks ar being used more than others. Furthermore the success of tanks depends on the commanders and the oppoent. So our judgement might be influence by their fame rather than its real abilty. Btw no offensive to those tank experts.

Anyway I favour Leopard 2 as the best tank

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 18:49
Originally posted by Hannibal Barca Hannibal Barca wrote:

I am actually leaning towards the Challenger II but I can't say that yet because the Abrams has shown itself as the most battle worthy tank. Give the Challenger some experience in the field so that we can see its true ability and it might be the best.

Abrams.

Not sure what experience the Abram has had that the challenger hasn't. both have only really fought waves of obsolete soviet vehicles as far as I know.

For me for the abrams to show it's worth in combat it would have to fight an enemy with some air power and demonstrate how the legions of fuel trucks are going to reach it and keep it in supply.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
OB Kenobi View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote OB Kenobi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 05:30
I'd say the Abrams for crew survivability. The crew usually manages to get out alive, even when hit by IEDs and the tank crippled. It's extremely heavy though and has run into trouble in certain Iraqi environments. Bridges collapsing from its weight obviously, but also muddy dirt roads. The Abrams is really pushing the weight and size limit.

Other than that, all these tanks today are sitting ducks for AT missiles, and eventually, smart AT artillery shells, mortars and rockets. Maybe they'll come up with some new composite armor, or finally get those energy shields perfected, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:20
Not all of the tanks the Abrams have fought were OBSOLETE. T-72's are far from obsolete. They have 125mm cannons and have extremely thick armour that have extreme resistantce to most kinds of shells. They are also one of the quicker tanks, but not as quick as the Abrams. The only tanks that could be comparable to the Abrams would be the Challenger Two and The Leopard Two A6
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:40

Leopard 2 has never fired a shot in anger. All three tanks are fom countries with no tank experience since wwii. Merkava comes from a nation who knows more about modern tank warfare than the rest of the world combined.

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:56
No tank experiance since world war two? Korea? Vietnam? Falklands? Egypt? Desert Storm? Afghanistan? Any of which say something? The only country that hasen't fired the single shot is Germany and that is because they are preoccupied in economics and self-matenance rather than wars. The reason Isreal has these technologies is the fact that Isreal was formed due to the will of the European and American powers and the end world war two. And what would someone from the Western Sahara know of Democracy? It's real definition is that so people may choose who they wish to be the leader(s) for that period of time. It is far more flexibile than Dictatorship or a Monarchy.
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:57
When it comes right down to it, everything regarding modern Jets, AFV's, and infantry arms comes FROM Germany! They developed these technologies thirty years ahead of their time and every country now uses the technologies as a part of modern warfare.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 16:10

Jets come from the UK (1930). Russian tanks were way ahead of German and Kalashnokovs still the no1 weapon in the world.

Oh yes I nearly forgot that famous tank battle on the Falklands, thanks for reminding me.



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:03
Oh really? Then why didn't the British have a jet fighter at the beginning of World War Two? Why were German to Russian Tank Casualty rates 1-10? Where do you think the Russians TOOK the idea for their Kalashnokovs from? The Machienpistole 44. Otherwise know as the Sturmgewher. My applogies, but there was no need for a famous tank battle considering once the British had their AFV's against the Argentinians, it was regarded as more of a turkey shoot.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:28

Britain did have jet planes in wwii,

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/jet_engine.htm

 

German tanks casualties became the higher of the two at the end of the war when it was the Russians that were attacking and the Germans defending. Whoever has an overwhelming advantage tends to kill more of the enemy.

The ISIII was better than any Infantry tank the Germans ever produced and the Centurion better than any German Cavalry Tank. The Germans had poor tanks at the outset of war, The French and to some extent Russians started better. The Germans undoubtedly built easily the best mid war tanks tigers, Panthers ect, but lost the advantage to Britain and Russia at the end. The designs for Pz VII and VIII are pretty dreadful.

AFV's played a very small role in the Falklands. It was mostly serious stupidity (bravery) and maneuvering by British special forces and poor Argentinians officers that won it. Argentinian conscripts were well dug in an fought ok by  poorly trained conscripts standards. It was never a Turkey shoot.

 



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:41
I know that they did, but the thing is they didn't start using them until 1945. The Germans were starting use of the ME262 in 1943. And the British were not very good at keeping their technology a secret. Did you that the MiG-15's were equipped with Rolls-Royce engines? And guess how the Russians were able to get that technoloy. Espionage? Thievery? No. The British placed this technology on a bet for a card game, and lost.

The Pather IID consisted if a high velocity 75mm cannon that would have turned the Centurion into piecemeal. The Germans also produced the Tiger II which had a 88mm high velocity cannon as well. It was also equipped with hydrolic steering, a first for a tank. Regardless of the JSIII being equipped with it's 128mm or + cannon caliber, it was only good against the mid-war Tigers. Not to mention it was plauged by numerous problems. It also had some weight ratio problems that would make it a unpractical to use in combat that already has mud and snow. The JSIII's were re-deployed with the Egyptions during the conflict between Isreal during the 1960's and over 1/3 of the JSIII's ever produced were lost under a 2 year period. Most medium/heavy tanks of the post war were based upon the Panther II E and D models as well as the Tiger II.  
"History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."
        -Winston Churchill-
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:49

Panther could have destroyed a Centurion so could a Tiger, then again it was a medium tank, that's what you would expect. But a Centurion firing APDS ammo could kill both at a greater range and kill a King Tiger too, nothing else could do that. It was also just about the simplest, most reliable across any terrain and most cannibalisable tank ever. The Israelis used to repair the engines with tractor parts.

A tank is more than just it's firepower. That's which is why the T-34 was better than anything the Germans had. And German tanks not so good. Petrol engines and complex parts.

ISIII is a greatly misunderstood tank, it was an Infantry tank. It was never designed to engage cavalry tanks, that was cavalry tanks, tank breaker and anti-tank artillery's job. It's low velocity 128mm was designed to fire HE at enemy fortifications, artillery and infantry and act as mobile support of infantry attacks.



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
AFV Master View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 62
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFV Master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:56
The most reliable? It only served for 10 years until the British replaced it. And the Centurian wasen't even deployed in any large number during the remainder of the war. The Tigers as well as the Pathers too shared this problem. None the less though, there was not a single loss of a PatherIID or a King Tiger II during the entire war. The original model Panthers were designed specifically to kill T-34s and they did there job to the up most possibility. In fact, a lot of Pather tanks were defeated not because of enemy armour but because they had ran out of amunition and they abandonded the AFV. The Russian captured many tanks due to this. Firepower is the biggest factor as well as armour because even if a tank is fast, without the ability to withstand a hit from an enemy shell, then speed dosen't matter, just survivability.
"History will be kind to me because I intend to write it."
        -Winston Churchill-
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 14>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.039 seconds.